Ex Parte Guglielmone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2017

12906927 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/906,927 10/18/2010 Federico Luigi GUGLIELMONE 060.0397US 1037
71599 7590 02/13/2017
T .KTlInhal (GMF.'l EXAMINER
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
VILAKAZI, SIZO BINDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FEDERICO LUIGI GUGLIELMONE and
FEDERICO FERRERO
Appeal 2015-003090
Application 12/906,927
Technology Center 3700
Before: LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM and designate our affirmance as a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Appeal 2015-003090
Application 12/906,927
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for operating an internal
combustion engine system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for operating an internal combustion engine system,
said internal combustion engine system comprising:
a combustion engine having an intake manifold and an
exhaust manifold;
a first EGR route adapted to convey exhaust gas from the
exhaust manifold into the intake manifold;
a second EGR route adapted to convey exhaust gas from
the exhaust manifold into the intake manifold, said second EGR
route configured to convey into the intake manifold exhaust gas
having a lower temperature than that conveyed through the first
EGR route; and
a regulator adapted to regulate a flow rate of exhaust gas
through the first EGR route and a flow rate of exhaust gas
through the second EGR route,
the method comprising the steps of:
determining a first setpoint value for a total amount of
exhaust gas requested into the intake manifold;
determining a second setpoint value for a parameter
representative of a relationship between the total amount of
exhaust gas requested into the intake manifold, an amount of
exhaust gas from the first EGR route, and the amount of exhaust
gas from the second EGR route;
applying said first setpoint value and the second setpoint
value to a control routine for adjusting the regulator; and
determining a third setpoint value for a temperature within
the intake manifold;
determining an actual temperature within the intake
manifold;
calculating an error between said actual temperature and
the third setpoint value; and
generating a correction index (I) using said error for
application to the second setpoint value in order to reduce said
error.
2
Appeal 2015-003090
Application 12/906,927
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—9 and 11—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fujita (US 2007/0246028 Al, pub. Oct. 25, 2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Fujita and Chmela (US 2004/0221831 Al, pub. Nov. 11, 2004).
OPINION
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are independent. Appellants argue all of the
claims as a group. Br. 11. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims
2—19 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
The Examiner rejects claim 1 over Fujita while “not[ing] that Fujita
does not explicitly disclose all of the claimed setpoint values, error amounts
and correction indexes as set forth in the claims.” Final Act. 2. But, the
Examiner reasons, “the determination of these values and error/correction
amounts” is implicit in “the process disclosed by Fujita in paragraphs
[0098]-[0102].” Id. at 2-3.
The Examiner then determines that the claimed formulas are “obvious
equivalents” to those implicitly disclosed in Fujita “since it has been held
that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
discovering the optimum or workable values or ranges involves only routine
skill in the art.” Id. at 3 (citing In reAller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Swain, 156
F.2d 239; and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330).
Appellants argue that 1) the Examiner has not shown “substantial
evidence to support the Examiner’s assertion of implicit disclosure” (Br. 16)
and that 2) “the Examiner’s application of the theory of inherency is
improper” (id. at 17). Both arguments center around the claim element
3
Appeal 2015-003090
Application 12/906,927
“determining a third setpoint value for a temperature within the intake
manifold . . . calculating an error between said actual temperature and the
third setpoint value; and generating a correction index (I) using said error for
application to the second setpoint value in order to reduce said error” of
claim 1.
Concerning the above referenced claim element, the Examiner finds:
Attempting to reach a specific intake temperature by adjusting
the mixture rate between the low pressure egr and high pressure
egr as set forth in paragraph [0100] of Fujita, inherently requires
a setpoint temperature, and any deviation from the setpoint
temperature is corrected by adjusting the low pressure egr rate.
Final Act. 5—6 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that the Examiner is “speculating” as to the steps
“needed to carry out the process disclosed in . . . Fujita.” Br. 11 (citing Final
Act. 3). Appellants further argue that this speculation is not “substantial
evidence” and that it rests on the “improper assumption that intake
temperature control cannot be accomplished by other means” (i.e. it is not
inherent). Id. at 14.
Rather than adjusting the mixture rate based on temperature feedback,
Appellants argue that Fujita teaches a system that uses pressure feedback to
“result[] in a stable temperature, and a stable temperature minimizes
emissions.” Id. at 15. But, “[n]o temperature setpoint or temperature error
is involved to achieve intake temperature stabilization (i.e., control),”
Appellants explain. It is further argued that “the intake temperature . . . and
[the fact] that emissions vary when temperature varies (FIG. 13) is mere
ancillary information and beside the point” that “would not have motivated
one to make the modification to Fajita in the manner claimed.” Id.
4
Appeal 2015-003090
Application 12/906,927
The Examiner responds that in “the typical process in most closed
loop feedback systems,” “‘stabilizing’ a temperature would require
attempting to keep the temperature at or near some specific value,” which
“[generally [means] ... a target temperature must first be determined, and
then adjustments would be made” accordingly. Ans. 3^4 (emphasis omitted
and added).
The Examiner’s description of a “typical” closed loop temperature
feedback system supports Appellant’s position that the relevant claimed
feature is not inherent in Fujita. Fujita itself is not always clear as to what
type of feedback system is used, though it does discuss pressure feedback.
See e.g., Fujita]] 39.
However, as also noted by the Examiner: “Fujita explicitly discloses
that too much high pressure EGR gas increases temperature in the intake
passage, thus increasing NOx (Paragraph [0099]). So the NOx production is
not a product of a stable rate so much as it is a product of intake manifold
temperature.” Ans. 3^4 (emphasis omitted); see Fujita ][][ 25, 99 and Fig. 13
(“FIG. 13 is a graph showing a relationship between temperature of gas in an
intake manifold of the engine and concentration of NOx.”).
Even if Fujita only teaches a pressure feedback system where intake
temperature is “ancillary information” for the pressure feedback system, as
argued by Appellants, Fujita explicitly teaches that NOx production is
directly related to the intake manifold temperature. We determine that to
one of skill in the art, this teaching suggests direct control of the intake
manifold temperature to thereby lower NOx production. As outlined by the
Examiner, temperature feedback control is a known method that can be used
to control temperature in order to achieve a desired set temperature. Thus,
5
Appeal 2015-003090
Application 12/906,927
we conclude that one of skill in the art would have found it obvious to use
the “typical” “closed loop temperature feedback system” discussed by the
Examiner to control the intake manifold temperature to be at a particular set
temperature. Ans. 3^4.
As laid out by the Examiner in a “typical” “closed loop temperature
feedback system” the process is as follows: “in order to stabilize a
temperature a target temperature must first be determined, and then
adjustments would be made to the system to arrive as close as possible to
that target temperature, specifically if it was determined that the actual
temperature was above or below the target temperature.” Id. at 4 (emphasis
omitted).
In view of the above, we determine that it would have been obvious to
one of skill in the art at the time of the invention to “determin[e] a third
setpoint value for a temperature within the intake manifold . . . calculate[e]
an error between said actual temperature and the third setpoint value; and
generat[e] a correction index (I) using said error for application to the
second setpoint value in order to reduce said error” as required by claim 1.”
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims
1—19. As our conclusion is based on additional findings and relies on a
different rationale, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellants with a full and fair
opportunity to react to the rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—19 is AFFIRMED, and
designated NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
6
Appeal 2015-003090
Application 12/906,927
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7